As for calling people retards and niggers and other things, if you had bothered to read the post you called dismissive, I mentioned specifically in the third example that speech specifically targeted and designed for harm is where the line gets breached between free speech and comments directed with malice and intent.

. . . it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

Society changing is what made those words insults, and we are better for it, not worse.

Oh, let's explore this, please let's. Because when you said "I guess there was no reason to stop people screaming nigger at black people" I'm sure you were talking about the early days when it held no negative connotation.

No, you weren't, and let's not play little pretend games with our meanings. Say what you will about my position and your dislike of it, I don't attempt to couch it in different terms if a point is made against it.

To be clear, back when the term nigger, retard, moron, and anything else in that ilk you wish to dredge up were simple descriptive terms with no negative connotation yet attached in meaning, there was no reason to stop people from saying them, because the word spoken caused no harm.

So when you discuss the moral reason to stop people from saying the word, you are clearly referring to the later years when those words had developed a negative impact.

Otherwise your comment would be ridiculous. It would be akin to saying "I meant that there was a moral reason to stop people from using the word tall to describe tall people."

As for calling people retards and niggers and other things, if you had bothered to read the post you called dismissive, I mentioned specifically in the third example that speech specifically targeted and designed for harm is where the line gets breached between free speech and comments directed with malice and intent.

. . . it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

Society changing is what made those words insults, and we are better for it, not worse.

Oh, let's explore this, please let's. Because when you said "I guess there was no reason to stop people screaming nigger at black people" I'm sure you were talking about the early days when it held no negative connotation.

No, you weren't, and let's not play little pretend games with our meanings. Say what you will about my position and your dislike of it, I don't attempt to couch it in different terms if a point is made against it.

To be clear, back when the term nigger, retard, moron, and anything else in that ilk you wish to dredge up were simple descriptive terms with no negative connotation yet attached in meaning, there was no reason to stop people from saying them, because the word spoken caused no harm.

So when you discuss the moral reason to stop people from saying the word, you are clearly referring to the later years when those words had developed a negative impact.

Otherwise your comment would be ridiculous. It would be akin to saying "I meant that there was a moral reason to stop people from using the word tall to describe tall people."

Hey. Hey OklahomanSun. That thing you just said about something affecting more people being more important?

That's Tyranny of the Majority, jackass.

There is tyranny of the majority (Voltaire) and also of the minority, my friend.

I've acknowledged that there is both a moral aspect and a legal aspect to speech. We have to be careful in both aspects.

If you want what I believe can be my ultimate argument, distilled to as short a point as I can make, it would be this.

The morality of a thing is not simply tied up in the interaction between individuals. Yes, there is a moral question when someone freely speaks about an action or a belief that causes harm to some individuals. However, there is also a moral harm done when the ability to express yourself is suppressed in order to avoid harm to individuals.

That is balanced by society and the courts as best as can be done by using the reasonable standard and the Constitution.

If a person is being truly offensive, society will do things to protect the harmed individual. The offending person will find doors closed to establishments, the other people in the group will close ranks around the harmed individual, there will be shunning, etc etc.

These are mechanisms sprung up in a civilised society to protect, and they will be employed. If a person is screaming nigger in public, they'll be thrown out of the privately owned building. If a person is being foul with talk about sex and rape, people will shout them down or do other things to protect the individual.

If you don't see anything being done to stop the conversation, it's likely the level of the conversation is not something that would rise to harm for a "reasonable person". As I said, and have continued to say, there must be a limit, a lower level.

Having loud enough to be overheard public conversations about your sex life is a lot closer to tyranny of the minority than being told NOT to have loud enough to be overheard conversations about your sex life. Whatever that sex life happens to be._________________

Black people were being hurt when racial slurs about black people were commonly being used everywhere. Hence why they and their allies fought to get those words out of common spaces.

Also, the subject of this conversation is about whether people can expect you to behave politely - which you never have to comply with. You can choose to be an asshole - and that makes you an asshole. And if people have a space where they don't let assholes in, they are within their legal and moral rights to not let you in.

So your free speech says you can say whatever you want regardless. My free speech says I can call you an asshole for it. And everyone's free speech says that we can make internet memes about your being an asshole, and that people who don't want to work with or spend time around assholes can prevent them from entering spaces over which they have control.

If you personally feel the need to say things that make you an asshole in a non-asshole space, all you have to do is find a safe place for assholes. No one is forcing you to remain in a non-asshole zone._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

As for calling people retards and niggers and other things, if you had bothered to read the post you called dismissive, I mentioned specifically in the third example that speech specifically targeted and designed for harm is where the line gets breached between free speech and comments directed with malice and intent.

. . . it would not be appropriate to reshape the rules of the society in order to extend further protections to you. To do so would inflict a much greater amount of harm on a greater percentage of people.

Society changing is what made those words insults, and we are better for it, not worse.

Oh, let's explore this, please let's. Because when you said "I guess there was no reason to stop people screaming nigger at black people" I'm sure you were talking about the early days when it held no negative connotation.

No, you weren't, and let's not play little pretend games with our meanings. Say what you will about my position and your dislike of it, I don't attempt to couch it in different terms if a point is made against it.

To be clear, back when the term nigger, retard, moron, and anything else in that ilk you wish to dredge up were simple descriptive terms with no negative connotation yet attached in meaning, there was no reason to stop people from saying them, because the word spoken caused no harm.

So when you discuss the moral reason to stop people from saying the word, you are clearly referring to the later years when those words had developed a negative impact.

Otherwise your comment would be ridiculous. It would be akin to saying "I meant that there was a moral reason to stop people from using the word tall to describe tall people."

Thank you for making it clear that you do not only understand what I was trying to say, but you also thank you for demonstrating a lack of understanding of your own previous statements. Also, with all those cherries you're picking, are you making a pie or perhaps some preserves? I was just wondering._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

If you don't see anything being done to stop the conversation, it's likely the level of the conversation is not something that would rise to harm for a "reasonable person". As I said, and have continued to say, there must be a limit, a lower level.

Dude. There are kinds of harm that are more invisible than others, sometimes only visible at the time to the one experiencing it, and it is NOT the job of a person who is currently navigating triggered flashbacks of bodily violation to immediately confront and engage with the person who triggered them.

As for other people doing something to curtail the behavior outside of the moment, that's what this conversation is, and what you are resisting.

This whole conversation has been about that particular scenario. Your supposed moral distillation is so general as to be mostly useless.

Dude, you are being an asshole, and you're not only incredibly ignorant about what kinds of harms people with PTSD from sexual assault experience and how big a problem that is, but now you're falling back on the friggin' bandwagon argument. If people are visibly opposing it it's reasonably hurtful, if they're not it's nbd? That is a CRAPTASTIC moral position. How about IF IT HURTS SOMEONE IT'S HARMFUL, regardless of whether anyone is actively standing up for them or not? An asshole is an asshole regardless of whether anyone is actively standing up to them. A shitty action is a shitty action regardless whether anyone is calling it out or not.

Don't you dare try to "name-drop" Voltaire in this conversation when your own moral philosophy is so thoughtless and primative. You are the one who described a specific argument in favor of tyranny of the majority, and I was pointing it out. And Monkey is also right, that the scenario that's actually being discussed here is much more like a tyranny of the minority on the part of those who insist on swinging their triggery conversations around heedless of who it hits--and that disconnect is also from your arguments, because you're the one who argued in favor of a "free speech" tyranny of the majority in a conversation about bad behaviors that can occasionally come from people in a subset of a particular kink community.

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, “crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students’ personal religious viewpoints on other students.”

_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, “crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students’ personal religious viewpoints on other students.”

Yeah, similar things were passed around where I live, and subsequently vetoed. I look at all this stuff and wonder if the US is heading down a road that will lead towards rebellion because of religious divides._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

Dear lord ,can someone sum up Oklahoma's point? I feel like participating in the talk, but I have zero interest in reading that page-length post. Well, to be honest right now I'm too tired for this, I'm mostly for the popcorn like monkey.

Dear lord ,can someone sum up Oklahoma's point? I feel like participating in the talk, but I have zero interest in reading that page-length post. Well, to be honest right now I'm too tired for this, I'm mostly for the popcorn like monkey.

Please, more popcorn.

It's a long-form slippery-slope argument against legal censorship protecting "special interest" groups leveled against a straw-man, mostly so he could hear himself talk, and repeating a few of the general points that other people already made as if he'd thought of them himself, but without elaborating on how they might actually be applied to the case of BDSM practitioners describing their scenes and practices in public in a way that could trigger victims of sexual violation, and not caring about, or (worse) shaming anyone who is negatively affected by it.

Generally, a spiraling tangent that has nothing to do with Samsally's actual statement.

I think the better question now would be: where would it be acceptable, outside the confines of your own home, to discuss things that could be a potential trigger? We've focused a whole bunch on whether it's moral or not but it's totally dependent on where and to who you are speaking. Talking about BDSM at a sexual abuse meeting? Not a good idea. Talking about it at a leather bar? Probably not an issue.

And for that matter, at what point do we have to consider something as being a potential trigger, or assume there are triggerable people around us? I mean in my examples there are obviously going to be people with triggers at the sexual abuse meeting, and probably not at the leather bar, because that would be putting themselves in a potentially trigger-filled place. But walking down the street, at a local cafe, in a restaurant?

I'd assume that it'd be okay as long as you followed common courtesy - keep the volume down, other people might not want to hear?

Also, Monkey's back, and he's brought posters of a giraffe raping a donkey. My heart weeps with joy._________________Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while, I think I see my brother coming, riding many a mile.

Black people were being hurt when racial slurs about black people were commonly being used everywhere. Hence why they and their allies fought to get those words out of common spaces.

Also, the subject of this conversation is about whether people can expect you to behave politely - which you never have to comply with. You can choose to be an asshole - and that makes you an asshole. And if people have a space where they don't let assholes in, they are within their legal and moral rights to not let you in.

So your free speech says you can say whatever you want regardless. My free speech says I can call you an asshole for it. And everyone's free speech says that we can make internet memes about your being an asshole, and that people who don't want to work with or spend time around assholes can prevent them from entering spaces over which they have control.

If you personally feel the need to say things that make you an asshole in a non-asshole space, all you have to do is find a safe place for assholes. No one is forcing you to remain in a non-asshole zone.

If we can be clear here, I was and still am playing the devil's advocate.

It's exceptionally unlikely that I would ever go around doing any of those things, and it's a bit strange that people are getting so angry about this that we've now devolved to calling me an asshole several times.

Dear lord ,can someone sum up Oklahoma's point? I feel like participating in the talk, but I have zero interest in reading that page-length post. Well, to be honest right now I'm too tired for this, I'm mostly for the popcorn like monkey.

Please, more popcorn.

It's a long-form slippery-slope argument against legal censorship protecting "special interest" groups leveled against a straw-man, mostly so he could hear himself talk, and repeating a few of the general points that other people already made as if he'd thought of them himself, but without elaborating on how they might actually be applied to the case of BDSM practitioners describing their scenes and practices in public in a way that could trigger victims of sexual violation, and not caring about, or (worse) shaming anyone who is negatively affected by it.

Generally, a spiraling tangent that has nothing to do with Samsally's actual statement.

Thanks for the insults. They're simultaneously productive and also indicate that I've made more points than you are willing to admit, or else there wouldn't be a reason to devolve to said insults.